1. Field
The present disclosure relates to computer systems for combating cybersquatting.
2. Description of the Related Art
Various types of marketing programs and systems exist for driving traffic to websites. For example, Google and other entities operate various types of cost-per-click (“CPC”) programs in which the advertiser pays a CPC fee when a user clicks on one of its ads. In some cases, the ads are displayed on the websites of third party “ad publishers” who participate in such programs in exchange for a portion of the CPC revenue.
Another type of marketing program is known as affiliate marketing. In an affiliate marketing program, website operators, referred to as “affiliates,” drive traffic to e-commerce sites in exchange for being paid a fee when the referred user conducts a transaction. For example, if a user selects an advertisement or other link on an affiliate site to access the e-commerce site of a merchant, and then completes a purchase, the merchant may pay the affiliate a fee. These fees are commonly referred to as “cost-per-action” (CPA) or “pay-per-action” fees. The amount of the CPA fee may depend on the type of transaction conducted, the dollar amount involved, and/or other factors.
Some merchants operate their own affiliate marketing programs. In other cases, an intermediary, sometimes referred to as an affiliate network provider, is involved. The affiliate network provider may handle such tasks as signing up and managing relationships with affiliates, tracking referrals and resulting transactions, calculating and paying CPA fees, and (in some cases) dynamically serving advertisements for display on affiliate web pages. Regardless of whether an affiliate network provider is used, the referrals are typically tracked using unique affiliate identifiers that are assigned to the affiliates and encoded in the outgoing/paid links.
With the advance of online advertising, online trademark infringement has become a major issue for e-retailers, brand holders, and the online advertising industry in general. With up to 20% of all hand-typed URLs being misspelled, a large market has emerged for “typo” domain names that exploit and monetize accidental traffic at the brand holder's expense. This practice, known as cybersquatting or typosquatting, costs brand holders millions of dollars each year in lost revenues and affiliate fraud (false activity generated by an affiliate in an attempt to generate illegitimate revenue.)
Cybersquatters have traditionally made money in a variety of ways. For example, a cybersquatter may register a typo domain, and then offer it to the legitimate brand holder for a relatively high price. Some cybersquatters put up derogatory remarks about the person or company the domain is meant to represent in an effort to encourage the subject to buy the domain from them. Other cybersquatters monetize their efforts by posting paid (CPC or CPA) links from the typo domain site to one or more legitimate sites, typically via participation in an advertising or affiliate marketing program.
Companies that desire to gain control over a typosquatting domain generally have three options available to them. First, they can contact the registrant of the typosquatting domain and either demand that it be relinquished (e.g., through a cease-and-desist letter) or attempt to negotiate its purchase. When this option works, it is usually the least expensive approach. However, such communications are frequently ignored by the typo squatters.
Second, the companies can file a lawsuit, typically under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999. This option is frequently the most expensive and also the slowest, but it has some advantages, particularly concerning foreign registrants and also concerning the possible award of monetary damages.
Finally, the companies can use the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) process developed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). A UDRP complaint may initiate a UDRP proceeding with an approved dispute resolution service provider. Under UDRP policy, successful complainants can have the domains deleted or transferred to their ownership. This choice is fairly inexpensive, typically costing a few thousand dollars in filing fees and preparation. It is also relatively quick—usually lasting about two months. Finally, the UDRP has the advantage of being internationally binding.
All of these tools are appropriate to consider when dealing with a handful of infringing domains. However, when the quantity of typosquatting domains increases, the costs associated with combating typosquatting grow exponentially. For instance, suppose a company has 250 typosquatting domain names to deal with and that each UDRP costs $2,000. The company now has a $500,000 expense to justify. Further, the task of preparing such a large number of UDRP filings, including gathering evidence of fraudulent activity, can be daunting.